Oxford libraries join fight against ‘government censorship’
Thousands of ‘terrorist books’ in Oxford libraries could leave librarians open to prosecution.
Oxford University has thrown its weight behind a campaign to amend the government’s controversial new terror laws after top librarians warned that the legislation could spell the end of free access to information. Oxford’s librarians are concerned that the terror laws could force them to withdraw books from public access and that students could be prosecuted for lending ‘terrorist’ books to a friend.
They have also discussed the possibility of being put under pressure by the government’s security services to release the names of students and academics who borrow certain books or journals. As reported in The Oxford Student last week, the government’s legislation on terrorism, which is currently being considered by the House of Lords, has already provoked an angry response from Oxford tutors who believe that the laws could compromise academic freedom and restrict tutorials.
Now the body which oversees the running of Oxford’s libraries, known as the ‘Curators of the University Libraries’, has acknowledged that the laws could have a serious affect on the Bodleian and other libraries, and have joined a campaign to change them. The campaign is being run by the Society for College, National and University Libraries (SCONUL). The society’s secretary, Toby Bainton, told this newspaper that Oxford was right to be concerned.
“The entire library profession in the UK has serious misgivings about the current wording of the Bill. It criminalises amongst other things lending, circulating or distributing a ‘terrorist publication’ which sounds reasonable until you see the very unclear definition of what a ‘terrorist publication’ might be.
“It is evident that a library could buy, catalogue and lend a book for months, after which a terrorist atrocity could occur and the book suddenly become, for the purposes of the Bill, a terrorist publication. The library’s governing body, for example the University of Oxford, would then be guilty of an offence.” Ronald Milne, Acting Director of the University Library Services, confirmed that Oxford was backing the campaign to amend the bill: “We’re lending our moral support.
The main issue we’re worried about is access to information, which is very much a concern, and also the liability of librarians for facilitating access.” Oxford was prompted to sign up after librarians warned that the bill could have an impact on the way students and academics use library resources both within Oxford and beyond.
Speaking in a personal capacity, Professor George Smith, who is one of the Curators of the University libraries, warned: “Internally, I can envisage circumstances in which we could be put under pressure to withdraw items of library material (books, monographs, even journals) from general circulation, and failure to do so could expose members of the academic community to risk of prosecution.
And Professor Smith believes the problem extends beyond the limits of Oxford: “We increasingly rely on electronic access to the latest research literature, especially in science, technology and medicine. “In those areas, we could be vulnerable to policy decisions taken elsewhere in the world, as a result of which, at the flick of a switch, we could be cut off from vitally needed scholarly information.
Part of the problem library staff face is identifying what could constitute a ‘terrorist publication’. There are almost two and a half thousand books in Oxford libraries with the word terrorism in their title or subject descriptions. “Librarians weeding out and not making available any work likely to be deemed ‘terrorist’ is something we cannot contemplate, on principle - nor indeed in practice,” said Mr Bainton.
“We simply want the Bill’s wording improved so that we do not have to choose between censoring our bookstock and laying ourselves open to prosecution.”
17th Nov 2005